Grid/Report by Country

DEDICATED TO BRIAN STREET 1943 – 2017

AUTHOR(S)

Country United Kingdom

Name: Julian McDougall

Institution: CEMP, Bournemouth

University

Position: Professor / Head of Centre

E-mail: julian@cemp.ac.uk

Name: Luis Pereira

Institution: Coventry University

Position: Academic Developer / Senior

Lecturer

E-mail: luis.pereira@coventry.ac.uk

1. DIGITAL LITERACY - BACKGROUND

a. Can you identify the main concepts around Digital Literacy (DL)?

In the UK the relationship between literacy, media literacy, media and information literacy (MIL), digital literacy and the established educational field of media education / media studies is complex. Generally speaking, in the UK, practitioners and researchers appear to share a view invoking Renee Hobbs’ provocation - “definitions don’t matter” and agree that digital literacy is less a ‘something’ than an opening up, for teachers, teacher educators and policy makers both in the UK and in the wider international education community, to begin to imagine differently. However, alternative discursive positions co-exist, whereby digital literacy is represented as central to and constituting of a new world order which citizens must embrace and inhabit if they are to be functionally active in the “modern world” yet at the same time digital literacy is a social practice distinct from educational or civic enviornments. (Kendall & Murphy, 2015). The ‘fault-lines’ between literacy, new literacies, time and space based literacies, media literacy, digital literacy, transliteracies, ‘game literacy’ and broader ‘safeguarding’ objectives have themselves been the subject of research, dispute and compromised practice. Media and information literacy, the broader field as endorsed and mobilised by Unesco, the European Union and the Global Alliance for MIL, is less familiar to stakeholders in the UK than other nations in the alliance. Digital literacy is a contested area but, as this report will demonstrate, capacity is building. Academically / theoretically, ‘interventions’ in digital literacy have often lacked the time and space required for adequately exploring the specific contexts and complications of situated literacy practices. However, the main concepts, and their manifestation in practice, are as follows: Literacy – the United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA) state “now that digital technologies permeate all aspects of life, to be literate means to be familiar with a range of texts communicated through diverse media and to be able to communicate through a variety of media. In addition, critical discrimination is needed in order to be able to cope with the variable authority of many texts encountered today” (see McDougall & Ward, 2017). Media literacy – media literacy in the UK has never been an accepted and cohesively defined idea. The UK media regulator OFCOM (2004) offered a ‘pragmatic’ definition of media literacy as consisting of three competences – accessing, communicating and creating. Cary Bazalgette is only one of a number of media educators who has found the term problematic: The very term ‘media literacy’ is inherited from an outworn and discredited 20th century tactic; that of adding the term ‘literacy’ to topics and issues in an attempt to promote them as new and but essential aspects of learning’. (Bazalgette, cited in Murphy, 2010: 24). David Buckingham, another leading protagonist in media education has recently observed the declining prominence of media literacy in policy rhetoric and implementation, from the peak in attention shortly after the inception of OFCOM – a regulator charged with a neo-liberal agenda for equipping citizens with the necessary competences for ‘responsible’ participation in digital media – to the current reformulation of this as ‘digital literacy’ – a more industry-friendly version, further away from the conceptual and critical practices of media education: There is now an urgent need to sharpen our arguments, and to focus our energies. There is a risk of media literacy being dispersed in a haze of digital technological rhetoric. There is a danger of it becoming far too vague and generalized and poorly defined – a matter of good intentions and warm feelings but very little actually getting done. (Buckingham, 2010, p. 10) MIL (Media and Information Literacy) – this broader concept, as formulated in a Unesco declaration in Paris and redrafted in Riga (2016), has little if any public or institutional

resonance in the UK, despite several UK contributors to the Global Alliance for MIL. Media Education – this covers the teaching of and with media across all sectors, from primary and early years through to higher education and doctoral level. Whilst most people experience some form of media education in the current educational system, it is not an entitlement or a subject to any policy or mandate. As such, the field is dominated by small-scale projects and initiatives, as disseminated in the Media Education Research Journal and at the Media Education Summit, both international but managed in the UK at the Centre for Excellence in Media Practice (CEMP). The subject association for teachers working in all related fields is the Media Education Association (MEA). Conceptually, media education is very broad and spans all the areas below. Media Studies – unlike many European countries, schools, colleges and universities in the UK offer a formal, accredited curricular subject, Media Studies, along with Film Studies and in higher education a wide range of variations of the subject. This is studied at GCSE (level 2, examined at 16), A Level and vocational Diploma equivalents (level 3, examined at 18-19) and in higher education, masters and doctoral (levels 4-8). It is always optional, and recently the mandatory element of Media in English (at level 2, GCSE) and the option to study media relating to citizenship were removed. Media Studies is framed by key textual concepts of genre, narrative, representation and audience and includes the study of media industries and institutions, debates and critical perspectives on media in society and an element of creative media production work, but the weightings of these elements vary between qualifications and between different awarding body versions of each specification. Digital Literacy – DL work in the UK, since 2014, can be categorised into five areas of policy and practice:

1. Observatory research – measuring digital access, activity and competence – eg OFCOM’s range of research and the Basic Digital Skills Report (Go ON UK / Ipsos MORI: 2015);

2. Educational / academic interventions – ranging from addressing competence gaps to co-creative, participatory projects seeking to utilise digital literacy for constructivist pedagogic means (eg the work funded and disseminated by Jisc and the Higher Education Academy) and more ethnographic work seeking to explore the complexity of peoples’ digital lives and how digital practices integrate with socio-cultural factors and personal narratives – eg Livingstone and Sefton-Green: The Class (2016)

3. Economic / employability interventions – increasing digital literacy competences for accessing services, benefits, training and 21st century workplace practices – eg Lloyds Bank UK - Consumer Digital Index (2016); Tinder Foundation / GO ON UK: The economic impact of Basic Digital Skills and inclusion in the UK (2015)’

4. Civic engagement / societal wellbeing initiatives – these attempt to use digital literacy as a conduit for participation in democracy or accessing public services which are not directly economic but indirectly reduce burdens on, for example, the NHS – eg Nuffield Trust: Delivering the Benefits of Digital Healthcare (2016);

5. Protectionist responses to digital / online threats and risks – eg O2 / NSPCC (2015) and ‘ShareAware’, the UK Safer Internet Centre,

Digital Inclusion / Engagement – in 2016 the UK Government switched from digital inclusion to digital engagement, led by ED Vaisey, Minister for Culture, Sport and Media, convening the Digital Engagement Council. The definition of digital engagement used here, linked to the development of digital capability in communities (see below) covers access, skills, motivation and trust to be online with confidence, and extends to the provision of digital support for those using the new universal credit benefits system. Digital Citizenship – this area is more prominent in the US in terms of resources and interventions. In the UK, an ESRC funded project ‘Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society’ (Cardiff University) is currently exploring the nature, opportunities and challenges of digital citizenship in light of governmental surveillance measures with four central themes: policy, technology, civil society, and news media. Databases of actors involved in surveillance policies, legal and technological aspects and a review of public opinion are outputs from the project in the public domain. Resources for protecting data and various privacy tools are available, so digital citizenship, understood in this way, is potentially at odds with the more corporate and

governmental initiatives described across the digital literacy, digital engagement and digital capability categories. Digital Capability – recently, researchers and practitioners have shifted from digital literacy to a transferable Digital Capability approach for measuring the outcomes of digital engagement initiatives in highly situated contexts. The core objective is to provide a nuanced picture of the complex relationships between institutions, education, community and technology. The findings of such interventions speak to the complexity of capability (adapted from Sen, 2008) as opposed to a more functional version of literacy and seek to avoid the risk of ‘othering’ communities and the various beneficiaries during such projects. This Digital Capability approach has informed both the development of Digital Families programmes – a series of digital media co-production activities for families – and the use of digital technology as a conduit for stakeholder engagement in community spaces.

b. Historical perspective

See the section above on media literacy and digital literacy since the inclusion of ML / DL in OFCOM’s remit. Between the late 1980s and early years of this century, many approaches were developed with the aim of extending the notion of literacy beyond its original application to the medium of writing. Margaret Meek Spencer, introduced the notion of emergent literacies in describing young children’s media-related play (Spencer, 1986). New / multiple literacies were researched by many academics in the following decade (eg Bazalgette, 1988; Buckingham, 1993a; Tyner, 1998), including visual literacy (Moore & Dwyer, 1994), television literacy (Buckingham, 2003), cine-literacy (British Film Institute, 2000), and information literacy (Bruce, 1997). New Literacy Studies introduced multiliteracies, spanning the social diversity of literacy and new forms of cultural and communicative practice (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Historically in the UK, digital literacy practitioners and policy makers have taken up various ‘Big D’ discourse positions (Gee, 2004, 2015) - dominant, public and institutional, ways of understanding digital literacy. ‘Digital Literacy’ (DL) is often used as an umbrella to refer to the collection of things people might do with and through literacy in digitally mediated spaces. Kendall and Murphy (2015) offer a recent overview of digital literacy discourses and their historical adoption in the UK. Early concept-making about ‘digital literacy’ can be traced to the field of Computer and Information literacy. Reflecting the then emergent nature of digitally mediated spaces, digital literacy spoke about “the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers” (Glister, 1997). This work drew heavily on a skills discourse of literacy, what Street had described as the ‘autonomous model’ (Street, 2003, 2012) within which literacy is re-presented as a de-contextualised ‘tool-kit’, a free-standing (or autonomous) set of skills, in reading, writing, speaking and listening, that, once acquired, enable the holder to function effectively across a range of contexts and settings. In time, the proliferation of new technologies across all aspects of professional and social life inevitably manifested new academic interest in meaning making around literacy. However, Burnett, Merchant and Parry (2017) caution against the imposition of an old/new binary, arguing that that this kind of linear reading misunderstands the complex nature of literacy work, both ‘old’ and ‘new’. Although substantially critiqued, Prensky’s (2001) old/new notion of the ‘digital native/digital immigrant’ binary has been cited heavily across digital literacy literature in the UK, particularly in reference to the teaching of digital literacy to young people. The National Literacy Trust for example has expressed concerns about a ‘digital divide’ (2009) between those who have access to and the knowledge to utilize digital technologies and those who don’t. NLT identifies two at risk groups: those without the financial resources to facilitate access and those without a clear understanding of the

centrality of new media to ideas about citizenship and social participation. Education, the NLT argues, be it ‘light touch’ informal learning opportunities, formal adult education or statutory schooling are essential to bridging a ‘digital divide’, a ‘solution’ which perhaps frames the digital exclusion as a ‘problem’ as framing the ‘problem’ of training and awareness. Qualitative studies of digital exclusion have offered more nuanced insights that illuminate the substantial influence of social and cultural capital on digital participation. Such studies suggest that the way individuals position themselves, or are positioned by others, in relation to digital literacy practices is inextricably entangled with ‘social inheritance’ (Grenfell & James, 1998, p. 16) and an individual’s ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu, 1984). For example, Eynon and Geniets’ (2012) work on ‘lapsed’ internet use shows 10% of young people aged 17-23 would describe themselves as ‘lapsed users’, that is to say that they had used the internet at some point in the past but no longer do. Whilst some cited reasons for their lapsed participation that chimed with the NLT assertions above, lack of access to resources, hardware or internet connectivity, others raised psychological concerns about safety and online bullying or the outcome of a previous negative online experience as explanations for changes in behavior. Eynon and Geniets suggest that internet non-use is a multi-faceted issue related to the complex interaction of five key factors that “together define the technological resourcefulness of a young person and determine his/her ability to access and meaningfully interact with the Internet” (2012, p. 3). These factors are: psychological - attitudes, motivations and agency towards the Internet and everyday life; cognitive - operational skills, critical skills, literacy and awareness of opportunity); physical - quality of Internet access, access to, and use of, other technologies); socio–cultural - family, friends, peers, school, work, community; material - occupation, income, education (ibid). This works pushes us away from a focus on ‘skills’ and ‘technologies’ and towards an interest in people and practices and the alternative narratives of a ‘new digital literacies’ paradigm. New Digital Literacies approaches treat language and literacy as social practices rather than technical skills, often drawing on Barton and Hamilton’s (1998, p. 7) five principles: literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; there are different literacies associated with different domains of life; literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, some literacies become more dominant, visible, influential than others; literacy is historically situated; literacy practices change, and new ones are frequently acquired through processes of informal learning and sense making.

In summary, in the UK there remains a clash between the more functionalist, protectionist or simplistically civic formulations of digital literacy that assume a deficiency to be resolved (eg using digital technology to engage in the public sphere, acquiring digital skills for employment to contribute to the economy, understanding the dangers of online connectivity relating to cyber-bullying, body image anxiety, pornography or radicalisation) and concepts of socio-culturally situated digital literacy practices (Gillen, 2014).

c. Concepts mapping: cross dimensions in regards to DL See above + mapping representation:

Absent Partial Developing Present

Information literacy X

Media Literacy X

Digital literacy X

Civic literacy / citizenship X

DL academic research X

DL education X

DL assessment X

Legal / Policy for DL X

SEN policy for DL X

A review of literature and research in the broad field of technology in / for learning

foregrounds empirical work with methodological rigour from the last five years, often

commissioned and / or disseminated by stakeholders listed later in this report,

alongside, and in dialogue with, the more rigorous, critical academic work from the field

of educational research.

Overly simplistic media representation and policy rhetoric – for example, the review by

the UK Government’s ‘behaviour tsar’ into the impact of tablets on children in

classrooms, was given less attention than empirical research into the complexity of

young peoples’ different relationships with mobile technology and with the ‘semi-

permeable membrane’ between formal learning in school and more diverse and porous

‘curational’ learning in other contexts (Potter & McDougall, 2017).

Libraries policy for DL X (IL)

Link with other actors

(private, civic)

X

Co-regulatory mechanisms X

Reporting (national level) X

Teacher training: initial X

: continuous X

Discipline: separate/by

itself

X

: transversal/with

others

X

Funding

Specific allocation X

Financial report X

Other actors

Regulatory media

authorities

X

Private sector X

Civil society organisations X

Youth participation X

Professional organisations X

Specific events X

Overlapping structures X

Evaluation

Media accountability X

Efficiency measures X

Performance of resources X

Publics targeted X

Amount of programmes X

Reporting (internal level,

ministry)

X

(Many) reports are limited by their emphasis on test scores as a measure of

educational achievement. Yet when you read more closely into the recent OECD

report, its conclusions do appear more nuanced. Most significantly, it argues that

teachers need time and support if they are to learn to use technology effectively.

Technology is the only way to dramatically expand access to knowledge. Why

should students be limited to a textbook that was printed two years ago, and

maybe designed 10 years ago, when they could have access to the world’s best and

most up-to-date textbook? Equally important, technology allows teachers and

students to access specialised materials well beyond textbooks, in multiple formats,

with little time and space constraints. Technology provides great platforms for

collaboration in knowledge creation where teachers can share and enrich teaching

materials. Perhaps most importantly, technology can support new pedagogies that

focus on learners as active participants with tools for inquiry-based pedagogies

and collaborative workspaces.

Yet this more complex message wasn’t the one that got through in the media.

Once again, the debate was presented in either/or terms. Either we use

technology or we don’t. Either we allow such devices, or we ban them. The

accumulated evidence from research on technology in education takes us well

beyond this kind of simplistic thinking. In light of the debates of the past couple

of weeks, it bears saying once more: Technology in itself is neither ‘good’ nor

‘bad’ for education. It can be both, but its value depends upon how and why it is

used. And yes, it can have a significant positive impact if it is combined with

broader changes in pedagogy. Yet the central issues here are not technological

ones – or indeed to do with ‘discipline’ – but to do with learning.

(Buckingham, 2015: Digital distractions: What’s wrong with the debate about

technology in education)

Buckingham can be considered an ‘extended stakeholder’ here, through his role in the

Pedagogy Group for Techknowledge and involvement in the Family, Kids and Youth

research.

Among the ’10 Golden Rules’ put forward by Techknowledge as a result of the

accumulation of their research findings throughout 2015, are Develop a clear strategy

for roll out, appoint members of staff to act as ‘champions’ including leadership, IT and

those experienced in using mobile devices and introduce professional development within

the school to include pedagogy and tech use (Technowledge, 2015).

Samsung’s Digital Classroom initiatives employed a different methodology, drawing

together Bloom’s Taxonomy, OFSTED criteria and a broad model of ‘Digital Literacy’,

similar to the cross-European criteria we have elsewhere challenged as being ‘tangled’

(McDougall et al., 2015). By this we mean that the criteria are ambitious and combine

several criteria for measuring the success of digital literacy projects, which may be

difficult to achieve at the same time. The published key findings from the Samsung work

that are clearly relevant to this project, despite the majority of the research being

conducted with younger students, relate to: collaborative working (between teachers

and students); more frequent presentation of ideas; independent learning with tablets

fostering ‘higher level skills’; and some limited evidence of increased performance in

STEM subjects by those involved in the interventions. The following findings were of

particular relevance to this report:

SEN AND DISENGAGED PUPILS SEEM PARTICULARLY TO BENEFIT

• The equipment makes it easier to differentiate learning, benefiting individual pupils

and making lessons more inclusive.

• Being able to create sophisticated presentations has made SEN pupils more

confident and creative in sharing their work in class.

• The equipment has helped to engage those who have been turned off in the

classroom.

The combination of innovative hardware and selected software has proved

particularly powerful. At Henwick Primary School, a pupil with dyslexia has

been using the dictation apps to record his ideas on the tablet. This has led to a

marked growth in his confidence, particularly in writing, and he has started to

use the keyboard more, using Clicker 6, a child-friendly tool that helps children

of all abilities write independently. (Samsung, 2015: 5)

With direct reference to the benefits of mobile devices for SEN learners, Techknowledge

presented a case study on the work of TreeHouse School in supporting students with

complex autism through the use of tablets. While this is more typical of ‘witness

testimony’ than empirical research, our review of such accounts informed the

provisional ‘success measures’ we were looking for in our intervention. However, we

were keen to distinguish between the device as ‘determinant’ and the richer blend of

pedagogic approach and co-design of learning, as appears to be evident in the work of

Indira Ramraj (2015):

This project truly brought out learners’ personalities, strengths, creativity and

imagination. For some of our learners at TreeHouse School communication,

emotion and imagination are barriers but in this project they shone in pushing

those barriers to express themselves and create their own stories, visions and

themes for their films.

A review of classroom research by Family, Kids and Youth (Clarke & Svanaes, 2014) for

Techknowledge (in its previous incarnation as Tablets for Schools) presented some

common findings pertinent to this report at a whole-school level (the ‘Culture of Use’).

Particular ‘success stories’ from Clarke et al.’s ‘meta’ review include the importance of 1-

1 access (provided in our intervention), the ability to personalise the learning

experience, learner autonomy and metacognitive development:

The portable nature of Tablets and the ability to be connected at all times is

argued to facilitate seamless learning. Pedagogical benefits identified across

academic research include increased or improved communication and

collaboration, increased independence, engagement and motivation among

pupils, and the ability to customise learning and benefits for children with

special educational needs. (2014, p. 16)

These are the kinds of functionings that are increasingly being identified in education;

Nield (2016) for example, includes a range of cross-curricular pedagogic activities that

are facilitated by tablets, such as creative practice, research, reflective practice,

collaboration, and programming.

Academic research into the potential for mobile, networked technology to provide such

learner-autonomy often invoke the concept of the “third space” - an area between school

and including repertoires of informal knowledge, skills and dispositions brought in from

‘outside culture’. Sometimes this is a literal third space, the actual halfway house of an

after-school club, museum, gallery, youth club or other such place, and sometimes this is

co-located in school as a metaphorical space, negotiated in dialogue and pedagogical

strategies designed to mediate expertise and challenge dominant roles and

representations of knowledge.

d. Cross geographies: how the policy in your country is cross-referenced to other

EU countries?

The European Commission had a specification on Media Literacy in the Audio-visual

Directive which has now been revised. However, according to Sonia Livingstone

(Interview, March, 2017), the UK has been arguing for reduction of regulation in relation

to that Directive, instead, and certainly not defending the importance of Media Literacy

in the Directive. Also Council of Europe has always been strength on digital and media

literacies and has several recommendations, which are relevant. It has more and

stronger provision but is a weaker organisation in terms of being biding on states. And

UNESCO continues advocate for Media and Information Literacy but the consequences

are again probably weak.

e. Is there any legal policy framework?

There is no legal policy framework for digital literacy in the UK.

f. Curricula: which levels of education are included or covered by the digital

literacy policy?

There is no formal curricula for digital literacy at any level (non HE level) in the UK

education.

There is something about e-safety, coding and a bit about how internet works, but it

depends on schools and their motivation to approach the topics, so it is no sufficient

coherent.

Other comments

2. SCOPE

a. Stakeholders

As a specific policy is hard to identify, the following are stakeholders with visibility

among digital literacy practitioners, educators and researchers and, indirectly, with

parents, employers and children. Where relevant, projects run by the stakeholders are

described.

Ofcom / Digital Britain - Ofcom’s media literacy activity focuses on two elements -

Providing an evidence base of UK adults’ and children’s understanding and use of

electronic media; Sharing the evidence base with a wide range of stakeholders internally

and externally and supporting their work via research. Ofcom’s robust research into

people’s media literacy needs plays a vital role in the formulation of public policy, as

well as providing organisations and agencies with the evidence they need to best target

their initiatives on the ground. It includes an annual survey and report on adults’ media

literacy, with trends over time since 2005; an annual survey and report on children aged

3-15 and their parents, with trends over time since 2005; annual small-scale qualitative

tracking research monitoring of about 18 people and their media habits, with trends

over time since 2005; annual small-scale qualitative tracking research monitoring about

18 children and their media habits; annual bulletin of internet metrics relating to UK

adults.

BBC – the BBC have a Digital Literacy remit and provide multiple projects, initiatives

and resources, for example BBC Digital Literacy Projects: Share Take Care campaign for

Safer Internet Day (online safety and critical thinking) / Britain in a Day (User-

generated content, production and creativity) / Free Speech (democratic participation,

critical thinking, digital production and creativity) / Give an hour (digital inclusion) /

Reality Check (news literacy, critical thinking).

United Kingdom Literacy Association – special interest groups on media literacies

and digital literacies and education (providing conferences, journals and resources for

educators).

NSPCC – online safety projects and resources. Partnership with O2.

NSPCC Net Aware, Share Aware.

Thinkuknow for parents – offers advice from CEOP education programme.

Department for Education – ICT / internet use policy and guidelines

Jisc The developing digital literacies programme (2011-2013) set out to explore

institutional approaches to digital literacy development in universities and colleges. The

12 institutional projects and 10 professional associations involved worked across a

range of stakeholder groups: students, academic staff, teachers, researchers, librarians,

administrators, technical staff, support staff and senior managers. The knowledge and

resources from the programme have been shared progressively. The digital literacies

programme built on a background of Jisc-funded work into learner literacies and

strategic approaches to their development and support.

JISC Digital Leaders Programme – provides a professional development programme

for further and higher education managers to:

Become a more effective digital leader through your own personal and professional

development

Explore how organisations can engage more effectively with the digital

technology at their disposal – at both strategic and operational levels

Discover and reflect on how digital technology is changing the way your

organisation operates – creating new leadership challenges and strategic

opportunities

Learn to lead, manage and influence digitally-driven change across

organisations, departments, services and teams

Become a digitally-informed and empowered leader and learn how to help

your organisation respond more effectively to technology-driven change.

NIACE (National Institute of Adult Continuing Education) – lobbies for Digital Literacy to

be included in policy as a ‘Third Basic Skill’.

BSC (Chartered Institute for IT) – Digital Literacy for Life Programme – feeds into policy

in form of GDS (Government Digital Service).

Learning and Work Institute – digital literacy resources for all age groups, including

the ‘Get Digital Campaign’ for older people in sheltered housing.

Code Club - nationwide network of volunteer-led after school coding clubs for children

aged 9-11.

OFSTED – schools’ regulator, includes computing education / ICT in their review of

schools, but no specific focus on digital literacy.

FutureLearn – offers MOOCs, including many with digital literacy focus.

Regional networks – eg South West Grid for Learning, digital literacy guidance.

Techknowledge – previously Tablets for Schools, provide research and resources

on the use of mobile technology in schools.

Big Lottery - key funders of projects around Digital Inclusion. For example, £5.8 million

was provided for a UK project that aims to teach digital skills to people suffering from

hearing and sight problems. The three-year project is spearheaded by the Royal

National Institute for Blind People (RNIB), and aims to train 125,000 people in basic

online skills so they can confidently use web-based resources to shop online, pay bills

and gain employment.

UK Council for Child Internet Safety cross sector initiative.

Childnet / UK Safer Internet Centre - responsible for Safer Internet Day each year,

example of cross-sector collaboration and online safety.

Get Safe Online - Online safety and security, convene Get Safe Online week every year.

Cyber Streetwise - online security and data protection.

Digital Unite / One Digital - For Digital inclusion / participation / networks (which

includes Citizens Online, Age UK, Ability Net, and a number of other stakeholders)

Tinder Foundation for Digital Skills - a charity which supports digitally and socially

excluded people to improve their lives through digital.

Media Smart – resources for media literacy education regarding the influence of

advertising.

HEA Digital Literacy – the Higher Education Academy funds projects and funds

resources relating to discipline-focussed and interdisciplinary digital literacy

development for teachers and students in Universities.

Digital Families - a programme of workshops that engage families in learning through

co-production and co-consumption of digital media. Each workshop follows a typical

‘lesson-format’ such that it is representative of how technology is currently used to

support learning in schools – something interviewed parents suggested was desirable.

Additionally, the programme targets families with SEN learners. This Digital Families

programme proved successful for engaging families with learning; providing additional

support to SEN learners; and fostering a culture of family learning.

Open Educational Thinking (Badge-Based Pathways) – blog and research by Doug

Belshaw.

National Foundation for Educational Research – Enquiring Schools programme:

provides evidence based teacher development and school improvement, includes a

digital literacy strand.

EDCL Foundation – provides programmes, campaigns and networks on digital literacy,

SEN, e-citizenship and ways of measuring digital skills

Glow up in Scotland – includes Digital Learning Community and Learning and Teaching

Strategy

Samsung Digital Classrooms - Schools are provided with a suite of Samsung

technology as well as teacher training, connectivity and maintenance support. This

allows not only for creative teacher–led learning but also for increased peer-to-peer

interaction through device mobility.

Northern Ireland Screen – resources and events to help teachers integrate media into

their classrooms. NI Screen supports three “creative learning centers” and the Future

Classrooms project, with a step-by-step guide for using mobile technology to impact

learning and student engagement.

Childnet Digital Leaders Programme – this initiative aims to empower children and

young people to champion digital citizenship and digital creativity within their schools

and to educate their peers, parents and teachers about staying safe online.

Libraries: As an example of a project run by a Library is the Code Club at Cardiff

Central Library Hub - Cardiff Central Library provided free code learning clubs for

kids in partnership with Code Club. The library provided the venue, host equipment and

WiFi; Code Club the expertise and the running of sessions.

Sonia Livingstone comment (Interview, March 2017): It used to be Ofcom but Ofcom has

stopped. The BBC in relation to children is trying but it is so fragmented that it is hard to

see a clear strategy. Industry players try to do something on e-safety but that is very

partial. Otherwise, there are good resources, like the of Media Smart initiative. So, there is

a lot of resources around but there is not anyone that coordinates and brings things

together. This was what BECTA used to do and its loss has been catastrophic for

coordination. Government’s decision that this entire field should be left up to individual

schools to decide has also been catastrophic. Children are learning by themselves, they help

each other and parents are help them. It means they learn the functional literacy they need

to, but not the critically literacy, probably.

b. Special needs education policies

Digital literacy is not included in SEN policy in the UK. The current SEND Code of

Practice (Jan. 2015) makes no specific mention of Digital Literacy, other than an indirect

outline of developing needed workplace skills, including using assistive

technologies. (Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years)

c. Contests to support DL

Check section Contests to support DL

d. Evaluation/Assessment mechanisms

There is no specific evaluation or assessment of digital literacy levels in education.

OFCOM’s media literacy audits provide the closest mapping - Ofcom - Media Literacy

e. Rights

According to Sonia Livingstone (Interview, March, 2017), access to digital media and

digital literacy are two crucial enablers of rights. Children have a right to education,

participation and information, and digital literacy in the 21st century is a vital means to

achieve that. So, there is no need to multiple rights, but it is not possible now, given the

state of dependence on digital media, to imagine how the mentioned children’s rights

can be delivered if they do not have access to digital media and if they do not have

digital literacy. And that really means critical literacy, given the huge expansion of

confusing and complex information.

The other point is about the role of business. You can only teach people to be literate

when the information sources are legible. The problem with the industry, in terms of

sites, services, search engines, is that they do not always design sources that are legible.

They are not transparent about their sponsorship; they are not designed to be

interpreted by children, they are designed for profit than for public value. What we have

is an extraordinary landscape of information abundance but that information is for

profitable reasons and not public reasons, so the literacy burden that results for citizens

is just enormous. So, the emphasis is not on how business trying to teach children how

to be literate but on how business making their services more transparent and

comprehensible.

f. Identifying initiatives promoted by private companies

See stakeholders section.

Other comments

3. FUTURE

a. Recommendations/Challenges

(1) Digital Capability is recommended as a less problematic term for adoption in the UK

than Digital Literacy. The main difference between the digital competence and

capabilities frameworks is in the DigComp’s neglect of life-long learning and self-

development. A human-centered, social literacies approach to digital capability

frameworks positions, learning, self-development and wellbeing above functional skills

or employability.

2) Several initiatives are taking place but there is a lack of consolidation. Because of the

fast transformation we face, there is no time to think and properly evaluate the impact

of digital technologies in children’s lives. Furthermore, in a time where manipulation of

facts is increasing, families should be encouraged/helped to get access to research

evidence on digital literacies in order to make informed decisions is a critical point. On

the other hand, teachers should be prepared to the challenges of educate children for a

digital world, but a report published in 2014 on how to equip future teachers in the UK

to actively embed technology in learning pointed out a “lack of a robust system to

diagnose digital literacy skills” (Taylerson, 2014, p.( 41).

b. (Best) Practices /Case Studies

(1) Digital Families is a multi-stakeholder initiative in Dorset including a community

space, workshops focusing on the family co-production of digital media and research

using ethnographic and capability approaches. Its primary aims are to develop parents’

and children’s levels of digital literacy; promote further family engagement in

community services; foster a culture of family learning to support children’s education

and provide opportunities for children with Special Educational Needs. This project is

funded by Samsung UK, undertaken by the CEMP at Bournemouth University, hosted at

IPACA (Isle of Portland Aldridge Community College), supported by Aster Homes and

Skills & Learning BDP.

(2) Childnet Digital Leaders Programme – this initiative aims to empower children

and young people to champion digital citizenship and digital creativity within their

schools and to educate their peers, parents and teachers about staying safe online. This

project is run by the Childnet International, a non-profit organisation working with

others to help make the internet a safe place for children, has the support from

Facebook and the European Commission. Similar to this idea, at Coventry University, an

analogous initiative is being piloted. It is called CU Digital Leaders and this is a student-

staff partnership with the aim of helping students improve their digital competences,

take ownership of their online presence and gain awareness of their own digital

identities. Based on peer-to-peer learning, This initiative is a collaboration of the

Lanchester Library, the Disruptive Media Learning Lab (DMLL), and the Office of

Teaching & Learning (OTL) with a group of students: the Digital Leaders.

Other comments

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local Literacies. London: Routledge Bazalgette, B. (1988). They Changed the Picture in the Middle of the Fight: New Kinds of Literacy. In M.M, & C.M. (Eds.), Language and Literacy in the Primary School. Falmer Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge. British Film Institute. (2000). Moving images in the classroom: A secondary teacher's guide to using film and television. London: BFI. Bruce, C.S. (1997). The Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Adelaide: AUSLIB Press. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Education. London: Polity. Buckingham, D. (2010). Do we really need Media Education 2.0? Teaching media in the age of participatory culture. In K. D., & K. S. (Eds.), Digital Content Creation: Creativity, Competence, Critique. New York: Peter Lang.

Buckingham, D. (2015). Digital distractions: What’s wrong with the debate about technology in education. Retrieved from: http://davidbuckingham.net/2015/09/25/digital-distractions-whats-wrong-with-the-debate-about-technology-in-education Burnett, C., Merchant, G., & Parry, B. (2017). Literacy, Media, Technology: Past, Present and Future. London: Bloomsbury. Clarke, B., & Svanaes, S. (2014). An Updated Literature Review of the Use of Tablets in Education. London: Tablets 4 Schools. Tinder Foundation / GO ON UK. (2015). The economic impact of Basic Digital Skills and inclusion in the UK. Retrieved from: https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org/sites/default/files/research-publications/the_economic_impact_of_digital_skills_and_inclusion_in_the_uk_final_v2.pdf Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York: Routledge. Eynon, R., & Geniets, A. (2012). On the Periphery? Understanding Low and Discontinued Internet Use Amongst Young People in Britain. Report for the Nominet Trust. Retrieved from: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/Lapsed_Internet_Users_Report_2012.pdf Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2015). The New literacy Studies. In J.R., & K.P. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies. London: Routledge. Gillen, J. (2014). Digital Literacies, London: Routledge. Glister, P. (1997). Digital Literacy. New Jersey: John Wiley. Grenfell, M., & James, D. (1998). Bourdieu and Education: Acts of Practical Theory. London: Routledge. GO ON UK / Ipsos MORI. (2015). Basic Digital Skills Report. Retrieved from: https://www.thetechpartnership.com/globalassets/pdfs/research-2015/basicdigitalskillsukreport_oct15.pdf Hobbs, R. (2014). Digital Media Literacy: A plan of action. In A. S. (Ed.), The Praeger Handbook of Media Literacy (Vol. 2). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Ramraj, I. (2015). How Technology Can Prepare Students for the Real World. Technowledge. Retrieved from: http://www.treehouseschool.org.uk/content/how-technology-can-prepare-students-real-world Kendall, A., & Murphy, G. (2015). It’s all about trying to meet the needs of your community: A digital literacies approach to engaging parents through social media. Paper presented at Media Education Summit: Boston, MA. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The Class: Living and Learning in a Digital Age. New York: New York University Press. Lloyds Bank. (2016). Consumer Digital Index - Benchmarking the Digital and Financial Capability of UK Consumers. Retrieved from: http://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/ConsumerDigitalIndex_280715AP_0116_v9_Web.pdf McDougall, J., Berger, R., Fraser, P., & Zezulkova, M. (2015). Media Literacy, Education & (Civic) Capability:

A Transferable Methodology. Journal of Media Literacy Education , 7(1), 4 -17. McDougall, J., & Ward, H. (2017). Embedding Media Literacy in the Secondary Curriculum. Leicester: United Kingdom Literacy Association. Moore, D., & Dwyer, F. (Eds.). (1994). Visual Literacy: A Spectrum of Visual Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Murphy, D. (2010). Euromeduc: the Second Congress of Media Education Practitioners. Media Education Journal, 47, 23-27. Neild, D. (2016, February 20). 20 Ways to Use a Tablet in the Classroom. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2016/feb/17/20-ways-to-use-a-tablet-in-the-classroom Nuffield Trust. (2016). Delivering the Benefits of Digital Healthcare. Retrieved from: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/delivering-the-benefits-of-digital-health-care O2 / NSPCC. (2015). Your child’s online world. A guide for parents. Retrieved from: http://www.markyate.herts.sch.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/O2-NSPCC-Online-safety-leaflet-Your-childs-online-world.pdf OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. Retrieved from: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/students-computers-and-learning_9789264239555-en#.WVy5IT_WzUo OFCOM. (2004). Ofcom’s Strategy and Priorities for the Promotion of Media Literacy. London: OFCOM. Retrieved from: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/72255/strat_prior_statement.pdf Potter, J., & McDougall, J. (2017). Digital Media, Culture and Education: Theorising Third Space Literacies. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , 9 (5), 1-6. Samsung (2015). Samsung Digital Classroom: Key Findings. Surrey: Samsung. Spencer, M.M. (1986). Learning to Read. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Street, B. (2003). What's "new" in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current issues in comparative education, 5, 77-91. Street, B. (2012). New literacy studies. Language, Ethnography, and Education: Bridging New Literacy Studies and Bourdieu, 27-49. Techknowledge. (2015). Research Overview 2015. London: Family, Kids and Youth. Retrieved from: http://techknowledge.org.uk/research/research-reports/research-overview-2015 Taylerson, L. (2014). Strategies to Improve the Quality of Initial Teacher Education. Worcestershire: Education and Training Foundation. The National Literacy Trust. (2009). The future of literacy in the digital age. Retrieved from: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/policy/nlt_policy/815_the_future_of_literacy_in_the_digital_age Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world. Mawhah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. UNESCO. (2016). Riga Recommendations on Media and Information Literacy:. Retrieved from:

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/riga_recommendations_on_media_and_information_literacy.pdf

5. ESSENTIAL WEB LINKS

BBc Media Literacy (pdf)

Big Lottery - Digital Inclusion

BSC

Childnet / UK Safer Internet Centre

Childnet Digital Leaders Programme - Childnet

Code Club

CU/DMLL Digital Leaders

Cyber Streetwise (pdf)

Department for Education

Department for Education

Digital Families

Digital Skills in the Primary Classroom

Digital Unite / One Digital

EDCL Foundation

Futurelab

Get Safe Online

Glow up Scotland

HEA Digital Literacy (pdf)

Learning and Work Institute

Media Smart

National Foundation for Educational Research

Northern Ireland Screen

NSPCC

Ofcom / Digital Britain

Open Educational Thinking (Badge-Based Pathways)

Regional networks – eg South West Grid for Learning, digital literacy guidance

Samsung Digital Classrooms

Thinkuknow

Tinder Foundation for Digital Skills

UK Council for Child Internet Safety

United Kingdom Literacy Association

Young Rewired State

6. IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERTS

(Data collected from expert will mostly be used in future publications)

Expert: Sonia Livingstone

Institution: LSE

Position: Professor